FILE - This April 13, 2011 file photo shows former baseball player Barry Bonds leaving federal court in San Francisco. The sentencing of Bonds will bring the federal government's nearly decade long investigation of a Northern California-based steroids ring to an anti-climactic end, barring an appeal. Bonds is scheduled to be sentenced Friday, Dec. 16, 2011, in San Francisco. Federal sentencing guidelines suggest a prison sentence of between 15 months and 21 months. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)

My votes for Bonds and Clemens are rooted in consistency. I have said and written for two decades that the Hall of Fame is not complete without Pete Rose, the all-time hits leader, who was banned from the ballot and baseball because he bet on baseball games when he was manager.

I understand that the crimes are apples and oranges because gambling does not affect performance on the field as drugs do - but my reasoning is the same. In my heart, I cannot envision a Hall of Fame that blackballs two of the most dominant players of their era, or any era.

Make no mistake: I believe that Bonds and Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs. I believe both lied about it under oath. I think both are scoundrels.

However, to leave them off my Hall ballot, I would have been forced to cross a bridge I have chosen to avoid. I refuse to whitewash an entire era and withhold votes from anybody who played from the purported start of the steroid era in the mid-1980s through the mid-2000s, when Major League Baseball and the Players Association agreed to drug testing.

That is what any Hall voter would have to do to be fair because nobody really knows who was juicing and who was not.

The Mitchell Report and the book "Game of Shadows" were instructive, but both had an inherent flaw: They were incomplete. They followed narrow trails of evidence that they and federal investigators had uncovered.

It's a joke to say the Mitchell Report painted a comprehensive picture of performance-enhancing-drug use in baseball. Many players who juiced were listed. Many were not.

I do not know how many home runs Bonds would have hit were he clean, certainly fewer than 762. But I also do not know how many more home runs he would have hit had the pitchers he faced not been juicing.

And the same is true with Clemens and strikeouts.

I will be accused of violating the integrity and character criteria established by the Hall. I choose to give those little weight as long as racists who kept African Americans out of the Major Leagues, players who routinely used their spikes to draw the blood of their opponents, sign-stealers and serial adulterers have plaques in Cooperstown.

I will be accused of rewarding "cheaters." What a crock. I laugh at the notion that steroid use was cheating and the widespread use of amphetamines over the decades was not. Many players have told me they believe the drop in inflated stats had much to do with the banishment of "greenies" and the "leaded" coffee that used to be available in every clubhouse.

As a kid, I idolized one Hall of Famer, a no-brainer first-ballot pick. Decades later, I spoke with one of his former teammates, who said my idol was very familiar with the "red juice."

I will be accused of being a Bonds "homer" and apologist. Baloney. Anyone who knows my history with Bonds understands that is ridiculous. He was a Grade A Tool, and no writer took as much Bonds abuse over the years as I did, especially when my colleagues at The Chronicle were writing "Game of Shadows." If I had any personal bias regarding Bonds, I would vote no out of spite and revenge.

I said during a recent speech that I was leaning toward voting for Bonds and Clemens but not until the second ballot as a way of punishing them, but I decided that is a silly stand to take and inconsistent with my reasoning that the most dominant players of an era need to be enshrined.

I am not saying I will exclude him forever. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around his career because it spanned the steroid era, began in an Oakland clubhouse rife with abuse and his signature achievement, the 70-homer 1998 season, was chemically aided.

I do realize my inconsistency in excluding McGwire for now, but my heart and head are engaged in a civil war.

The argument that all players either are or are not Hall of Famers when their names first hit the ballot is bunk. The Hall gives players a 15-year window for a reason. Events always are clearer through the prism of time. I choose to take more time on McGwire.

I did not vote for Sammy Sosa because, steroids aside, he is not first-ballot material. He hit 609 home runs. He also is tied for 186th all-time in OPS-plus. (McGwire is tied for 11th.)

Also, I am holding my ballot for a few more days so I can decide on Biggio, a player I loved to watch. I know all the arguments for and against, starting with his 3,060 hits, but I want more time to ruminate.